Yes. It won't be done for while. Not in this eco' climate.
However. It could be done in several years time if Apple has grown its PPC market share significantly in said time. ie to 10%.
A reachable target. But they're going to have to grit this one out to reach it.
"Oh, and just so you know... Alias|Wavefront grew their Maya market 25% by deciding to support the Macintosh OS X platform. This should open some eyes, no?"
Excellent point.
10%. It's about building momentum...everything from Unix to Java to iapps (isync) to switch to Jag' (Rendezvous) to cool new hardware... All areas where Jag' buries Windows.
They'll reach their 10% faster if the 'ubergig' hardware Moki's hinting at offers a significant performance increase over the competition. For many, the bottom line is performance. Many can get a cheap Linux x86 box or a cheap and fast windows x86 box. Apple need to offer hardware that has superior performance. (They already have the quality.) ie To justify the extra price.
I'm sure many can live with a premium if they're getting 'more'. (For some, it's the OS X...for many x86 purchases who pass over Mac...its performance and price.)
Does Apple have the 'uber Ace card' up its sleeve? (ie for 'Shake' et al, for 'power'Macs etc?)
I hope so.
Lemon Bon Bon
The dual boot strategy seems intended to get Macs into Markets they wouldn't be considered in.
It has to be done from a stronger position.
Licensing X on IBM servers might be part of strengthening that position.
And the dual boot.
1. Dual 'x' and 'xp on x86 hardware? (developers left to migrate to x86 'X' in their own sweet time...Apple leads charge with x86 'x' versions of their software? x86 users like 'X' on x86 but not many apps available for it...nice but... And the price. Cool hardware...but hey...it aint competitive with Dell on price...but it looks cooler...yeah...but it contains less ram...a slower processor...or does it? I'm paying for the same specs but more expensive price for cool hardware...Apple makes some profit. Sales aren't great for an extra 'OS' with no apps in a cool case. But the x86 iMac looks cool. Maybe Apple does make loads of Money initially... See: x86 iPod future sales...)
2. Dual boot PPC 'X' hardware/x86 hardware 'X'? (as above...but we've got all our compatible apps via PPC...and, in a few years time...its a Power...so Mac users may not care about the x86 'X' so much...PC users, great...OS 'X' on 'x86'...but where are all the apps...? Apple gets some extra sales for all those 'Apple switchers' that wanted an 'x86' chip. Got one. But...no apps...oops. Apple has a Virtual PC 'carbon' style app in x86 Aqua. Window 'X' emulation. X86 apps run in an 'X' window... Developers say to Mac users...'run' Photoshop in your 'X' Windows 'X' mode. Apple dies a fast death. EVEN faster than the one they're curently 'dying' in.)
3. Dual boot PPC 'X' hardware/x86 hardware 'Xp'? (we get our Power chip...play the odd 'x86' game...boot back into 'Power' chip to get some serious work done. Corporate buyers get x86 box...but may look at the Power...wow...dey fast...try 'x' server...many 'PC' hardliners have option of trying Mac...get seduced...Sure, they've got to 'rebuy' apps...but hey...they've switched...now they KNOW the Mac is superior...they're gonna cross grade...it's worth the 'one time' hit ove the 'long term'. They're going 'Mac'. Not necessarily 'PPC'. Apple makes loads of money. We sell cos we do x86 and PPC. Worth the extra premium. Why? Power chip is a multimedia powerhouse and for those that need a 'dual' environment can get the apps they don't have on Mac. Granny can do her office letters on Office. Business can use x86. Macs there. Used for not. Still has 'penetration' for the next stage of the 'master' plan. eg giving Open Office free to everybody!!! Free 'Apple' branded or not version on both x86 and PPC. M$ dominance in Office gradually eroded. Evil laugh. M$ looks like bunny about to be hit by a juggernaut. Apple abolished site licenses for business and education customers. Bus' and Ed' save thousands on OS and Apple software. Get free copy of Open Office. Analysts eyes bulge. Fears over Mac developers 'pulling' Mac support are misplaced. Multimedia folk use the Power...it's faster, X is superior, Mac loyalists hold gun to head of straying developers/Mac users...and heck, Apple have bought up all the multimeda apps worth having, Shake, Final cut, emagic...maybe they've even bought Maya (or some 3d app...) and Macromedia and adobe and...)
For those of you who are a little down on the MHz ratings of the PPC processors Apple is currently offering when compared to Intel CPUs, here's an interesting little tidbit.
For the distributed.net client, which has been highly optimized for all of the architectures it runs on, a dual 1ghz G4 machine running OS X 10.1 pumps out over 10,000,000 keys/sec, compared to just 5,000,000 or so keys/sec for an Intel Pentium IV @ 2.8ghz, and about 6,000,000 keys/sec for a 1.7ghz Athlon. Not too shabby -- AltiVec does indeed kick some ass.
Name one OS that has any kind of decent marketshare and/or application support. The one OS you'd name would be Windows, and to a much lesser degree, the Mac OS.
Outside of the server market, Linux isn't even on the map, and there are no other OS's of note with regards to marketshare and/or application support.
The point being that asking what cross plaform OS has decent marketshare and/or application support is a red herring. Outside of Windows, and marginally the Mac OS, there ARE no other operating systems that meet these criterea, cross platform or not.
Well, that just proves my point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure what point it proved -- while Solaris for x86 wasn't the success Sun hoped for, it also certainly didn't "destroy" the company, any more than an x86 version of Mac OS X would kill Apple.
On one hadn you're implying that Apple is going to move to x86 and on the other hand you're implying that some kick-ass PPC is in the works.
Now tell me, why would Apple need to move to x86, if the PPC suddenly kicked ass again?
Because selling x86 boxes would be cheaper?
No way.
So you're basically saying that Apple is gearing up for a dual platform lineup within the next years, arguably dual platforms for the same target audience even.
I'm sorry, but I don't see that happening, I really don't. I'd rather see a return of the PC compatibility cards before that.
As some aussie PC guy on ZZZ once argued with me, he'd see Apple make machines with 2 CPUs on them, a PPC and a x86, running both at once.
[quote] For those of you who are a little down on the MHz ratings of the PPC processors Apple is currently offering when compared to Intel CPUs, here's an interesting little tidbit.<hr></blockquote>I'm surprised you even thought about posting this moki. RC5 pefromance is literally the only area where top of the like Mac hardware beats top of the line X86 hardware. Even Photoshop is slower on Macs now, usually by orders of magnitude. RC5 is a fluke, and is not representative of hardware performance.
[[[I'm surprised you even thought about posting this moki. RC5 pefromance is literally the only area where top of the like Mac hardware beats top of the line X86 hardware.]]]
Well, there are other areas... Gene sequencing for one. SETI for another...
[[[Even Photoshop is slower on Macs now]]]
Wrong. This is BS. I speak closely with Chris Cox from Adobe on a regular basis. He's been known to pop up on message forums from time to time to completely debunk that claim. And yes.... he's aware of the skewed test results floating around the web and is in constant contact with their authors. ;-)
[[[RC5 is a fluke, and is not representative of hardware performance. ]]]
What it shows is that a significant performance gain can be attained *if* a sufficient effort is put into optimizing for the Mac. RC5 is NOT a fluke. Neither is SETI or any other benchmark that shines the Mac in a brighter light. Note that the code for both of those benchmarks are available for whoever would like to optimize for it.
Apple doesn't need to move to X86, they are likely just using the ability to go there once fully transitioned to X to scare IBM and Moto into some more resources devoted towards gains.
As a Mac and a PC user, I am amazed that mhz is all that anyone can think about. This isn't going to be another long post about usability, but rather just some info to show that it isn't all about mhz...
First if having the fastest solution were the answer, Intel wouldn't be reducing their earnings forecasts, AMD wouldn't be bleeding money (again) and even nVidia has having to reduce their estimated earnings.
On the PC side, they are becoming more and more Mac like in the regard that more and more things are on the motherboard and can't be replaced. Most of these parts are inferior to the Mac equivelent and also slow the machine down considerably from whatever sky high numbers the processor produces. So you can have a 2 ghz $599 wintel box, but it will have integrated video, audio, and networking all lugging down that processor. Apple can easily compete here just by adding some level 3 cache to the current low end G4's and watching them run all over these machines.
The towers...well the towers... Apple should make them all standard dual processor again and then limit the high end box to $2500 with DVD-R. This would put the low end dual box at about $1299 which could be worth it if the new towers have dual bays and it includes DVD and CD-R.
On one hadn you're implying that Apple is going to move to x86 and on the other hand you're implying that some kick-ass PPC is in the works.
Now tell me, why would Apple need to move to x86, if the PPC suddenly kicked ass again?</strong><hr></blockquote>I don't believe he's claiming Apple is making any move currently he is just saying Apple could do so if they chose and does have options if they need them.
There is a very big difference between having an option and exercising it though and I really do see it as being an incredibly unlikely option at least for the next few years. After that length of time any number of things can change.
We all know Microsoft likes to dominate all markets rather than just being another player, so why is there no Windows PPC? NT 3.51 had a PPC version, but it was never pushed. There is a checkbox in Codewarrior to compile for multiple CPUs, but they don't do it. PC developers rarely use a single codebase for multiplatform apps, even MS created the MacBU to recreate Office and IE for Mac. Why not just port Windows and click the other target checkbox?
I'm sure if there was money to be made doing this they would be, but they know no Mac user will spend $2000 on a Mac to run Windows on it. Similarly no PC user will 'switch' to a Windows Mac either - they won't be 2Ghz and $599, they'll be $2000+ like always. Corporates don't buy on CPU type, they buy on price, compatibility and what the head of IT says.
So what are we left with? A really expensive Apple PC which runs a version of X no PC developers support and few Mac developers support, and an Apple Mac that people won't buy because it may be discontinued.
Market confusion is not a good thing for any company. Neither is enticing people with greener grass then switching to the seed they were using before.
Blackcat. I think it depends on the implementation. x86 could be a doomsday scenario.
But given Apple's track record of late. I don't think so.
Apple have done the impossible in the last few years. And still they have overall shrinking marketshare. Of a hundred million PCs being sold, how many are Apples? Not many is the answer.
So. Apple will have to do the unthinkable and do the impossible over the next few years to get 10%.
They're going to have to come out of their corner with all guns blazing.
x86 is AN option. It MAY be the LAST option.
I guess we'll see.
Having 3% marketshare...(or 5% if you're optimistic...) then Apple are going to have to do something radical over the next few years. The overall price is dropping for PC ownership and only Apple seem to be treading water (for now) on this one.
It's not all doom and gloom. 'Empires' in history have relatively quickly crumpled. Even faster in I.T.
Bar their specs/prices...the 'Mac' has alot going for it.
Interesting, I read that Apple are increasing their purchase of components from Taiwan in the next year...to decrease the hardware cost of Apple products and make them more competitive.
I hope this signals Apple is going to get down and dirty with their 'switch' campaign. They'd better...if they're going to be comparing Macs and PCs in stores...
<strong><snip>Even Photoshop is slower on Macs now, usually by orders of magnitude. RC5 is a fluke, and is not representative of hardware performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope that's sarcasm. I have yet to see one benchmark in which the the winning Photoshop computer won but such a large margin.
x86 hardware IMO is simply not superior enough for me to want a switch personally. I would like to see another two years of Apple/IBM/Moto work before making a judgement.
Just my comment on this thread thats been running forever!
I think a lot of you have missed the point of moving to another chip.
If Apple move to another chip, for the sake of argument say it's Intel's next big offering, then there are several things that are going to be a given:
1. Apple will be the only manufacturer to build the Mac.
2. OS X might well run on an Intel chip but there's no way it's going to run on anyone else's hardware except Apple's.
3. There's no way Apple's hardware will EVER allow you to install/run Windows of any form, outside of emulation or terminal clients.
The point of getting a new chip is to make the mac run faster than all the other wintel boxes, not to allow MS an 'in' to the Mac or to wipe out Apples HW business by putting the lovely MacOS X on any old beige heap
LBB, I think your LAST RESORT description sums up Mac x86 well.
There really isn't much wrong with the Mac in areas which count on the balance sheet. We're not too hot in 3D but that could well be about to change if we see the 7470 next week.
Perception and Price are what needs changing, not Processor.
A 1.4Ghz G4 should help - in real terms that's about the same speed as a 2Ghz P4, add DDR and AltiVec and it looks pretty good. In truth email and Word are fine on a 500Mhz chip on any platform.
All the prices need lowering. It's better to sell 2 Macs at $2500 than 1 at $3500. Apple needs resellers like CompUSA and PCWorld on side too. I get fed up of seeing crashed Macs in stores.
Finally Apple needs to buy a PC games house so that the best games are on Mac first. They need to ensure affordable after-market graphics cards are out there too.
These things would offer far more ROI than going up against MS as a PC builder.
<strong>LBB, I think your LAST RESORT description sums up Mac x86 well.
There really isn't much wrong with the Mac in areas which count on the balance sheet. We're not too hot in 3D but that could well be about to change if we see the 7470 next week.
Perception and Price are what needs changing, not Processor.
A 1.4Ghz G4 should help - in real terms that's about the same speed as a 2Ghz P4, add DDR and AltiVec and it looks pretty good. In truth email and Word are fine on a 500Mhz chip on any platform.
All the prices need lowering. It's better to sell 2 Macs at $2500 than 1 at $3500. Apple needs resellers like CompUSA and PCWorld on side too. I get fed up of seeing crashed Macs in stores.
Finally Apple needs to buy a PC games house so that the best games are on Mac first. They need to ensure affordable after-market graphics cards are out there too.
These things would offer far more ROI than going up against MS as a PC builder.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
However. It could be done in several years time if Apple has grown its PPC market share significantly in said time. ie to 10%.
A reachable target. But they're going to have to grit this one out to reach it.
"Oh, and just so you know... Alias|Wavefront grew their Maya market 25% by deciding to support the Macintosh OS X platform. This should open some eyes, no?"
Excellent point.
10%. It's about building momentum...everything from Unix to Java to iapps (isync) to switch to Jag' (Rendezvous) to cool new hardware... All areas where Jag' buries Windows.
They'll reach their 10% faster if the 'ubergig' hardware Moki's hinting at offers a significant performance increase over the competition. For many, the bottom line is performance. Many can get a cheap Linux x86 box or a cheap and fast windows x86 box. Apple need to offer hardware that has superior performance. (They already have the quality.) ie To justify the extra price.
I'm sure many can live with a premium if they're getting 'more'. (For some, it's the OS X...for many x86 purchases who pass over Mac...its performance and price.)
Does Apple have the 'uber Ace card' up its sleeve? (ie for 'Shake' et al, for 'power'Macs etc?)
I hope so.
Lemon Bon Bon
The dual boot strategy seems intended to get Macs into Markets they wouldn't be considered in.
It has to be done from a stronger position.
Licensing X on IBM servers might be part of strengthening that position.
And the dual boot.
1. Dual 'x' and 'xp on x86 hardware? (developers left to migrate to x86 'X' in their own sweet time...Apple leads charge with x86 'x' versions of their software? x86 users like 'X' on x86 but not many apps available for it...nice but... And the price. Cool hardware...but hey...it aint competitive with Dell on price...but it looks cooler...yeah...but it contains less ram...a slower processor...or does it? I'm paying for the same specs but more expensive price for cool hardware...Apple makes some profit. Sales aren't great for an extra 'OS' with no apps in a cool case. But the x86 iMac looks cool. Maybe Apple does make loads of Money initially... See: x86 iPod future sales...)
2. Dual boot PPC 'X' hardware/x86 hardware 'X'? (as above...but we've got all our compatible apps via PPC...and, in a few years time...its a Power...so Mac users may not care about the x86 'X' so much...PC users, great...OS 'X' on 'x86'...but where are all the apps...? Apple gets some extra sales for all those 'Apple switchers' that wanted an 'x86' chip. Got one. But...no apps...oops. Apple has a Virtual PC 'carbon' style app in x86 Aqua. Window 'X' emulation. X86 apps run in an 'X' window... Developers say to Mac users...'run' Photoshop in your 'X' Windows 'X' mode. Apple dies a fast death. EVEN faster than the one they're curently 'dying' in.)
3. Dual boot PPC 'X' hardware/x86 hardware 'Xp'? (we get our Power chip...play the odd 'x86' game...boot back into 'Power' chip to get some serious work done. Corporate buyers get x86 box...but may look at the Power...wow...dey fast...try 'x' server...many 'PC' hardliners have option of trying Mac...get seduced...Sure, they've got to 'rebuy' apps...but hey...they've switched...now they KNOW the Mac is superior...they're gonna cross grade...it's worth the 'one time' hit ove the 'long term'. They're going 'Mac'. Not necessarily 'PPC'. Apple makes loads of money. We sell cos we do x86 and PPC. Worth the extra premium. Why? Power chip is a multimedia powerhouse and for those that need a 'dual' environment can get the apps they don't have on Mac. Granny can do her office letters on Office. Business can use x86. Macs there. Used for not. Still has 'penetration' for the next stage of the 'master' plan. eg giving Open Office free to everybody!!! Free 'Apple' branded or not version on both x86 and PPC. M$ dominance in Office gradually eroded. Evil laugh. M$ looks like bunny about to be hit by a juggernaut. Apple abolished site licenses for business and education customers. Bus' and Ed' save thousands on OS and Apple software. Get free copy of Open Office.
[ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
For the distributed.net client, which has been highly optimized for all of the architectures it runs on, a dual 1ghz G4 machine running OS X 10.1 pumps out over 10,000,000 keys/sec, compared to just 5,000,000 or so keys/sec for an Intel Pentium IV @ 2.8ghz, and about 6,000,000 keys/sec for a 1.7ghz Athlon. Not too shabby -- AltiVec does indeed kick some ass.
Here's a dual ghz machine: <a href="http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=99&cpumhz=1000&recordid=1&contes t=rc5&multi=0" target="_blank">http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=99&cpumhz=1000&recordid=1&contes t=rc5&multi=0</a>
Here's the 2.8ghz Intel Pentium IV: <a href="http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=79&cpumhz=2800&recordid=1&contes t=rc5&multi=0" target="_blank">http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=79&cpumhz=2800&recordid=1&contes t=rc5&multi=0</a>
Here's the 1.7ghz Athlon: <a href="http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=77&cpumhz=1739&recordid=1&contes t=rc5&multi=0" target="_blank">http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=77&cpumhz=1739&recordid=1&contes t=rc5&multi=0</a>
Here's a list of ratings for all PPC machines: <a href="http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=all&arch=2&contest=rc5"; target="_blank">http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=all&arch=2&contest=rc5</a>;
Here's a list of ratings for all x86 machines: <a href="http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=all&arch=0&contest=rc5"; target="_blank">http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=all&arch=0&contest=rc5</a>;
<strong>
Name one OS that has any kind of decent marketshare and/or application support. The one OS you'd name would be Windows, and to a much lesser degree, the Mac OS.
Outside of the server market, Linux isn't even on the map, and there are no other OS's of note with regards to marketshare and/or application support.
The point being that asking what cross plaform OS has decent marketshare and/or application support is a red herring. Outside of Windows, and marginally the Mac OS, there ARE no other operating systems that meet these criterea, cross platform or not.
[ 08-04-2002: Message edited by: moki ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ever heard of Solaris?
<strong>
Ever heard of Solaris?</strong><hr></blockquote>
What you haven't heard. Sun is close to nixing X86 Solaris
<a href="http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/server/story/0,10801,70339,00.html"; target="_blank">Hasn't happened yet but the rumors are there.</a>
<strong>
What you haven't heard. Sun is close to nixing X86 Solaris
<a href="http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/server/story/0,10801,70339,00.html"; target="_blank">Hasn't happened yet but the rumors are there.</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that just proves my point.
<strong>
Ever heard of Solaris?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, I've heard of Solaris. It doesn't meet the criteria.
[ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: moki ]</p>
<strong>
Well, that just proves my point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure what point it proved -- while Solaris for x86 wasn't the success Sun hoped for, it also certainly didn't "destroy" the company, any more than an x86 version of Mac OS X would kill Apple.
On one hadn you're implying that Apple is going to move to x86 and on the other hand you're implying that some kick-ass PPC is in the works.
Now tell me, why would Apple need to move to x86, if the PPC suddenly kicked ass again?
Because selling x86 boxes would be cheaper?
No way.
So you're basically saying that Apple is gearing up for a dual platform lineup within the next years, arguably dual platforms for the same target audience even.
I'm sorry, but I don't see that happening, I really don't. I'd rather see a return of the PC compatibility cards before that.
As some aussie PC guy on ZZZ once argued with me, he'd see Apple make machines with 2 CPUs on them, a PPC and a x86, running both at once.
G-News
Well, there are other areas... Gene sequencing for one. SETI for another...
[[[Even Photoshop is slower on Macs now]]]
Wrong. This is BS. I speak closely with Chris Cox from Adobe on a regular basis. He's been known to pop up on message forums from time to time to completely debunk that claim. And yes.... he's aware of the skewed test results floating around the web and is in constant contact with their authors. ;-)
[[[RC5 is a fluke, and is not representative of hardware performance. ]]]
What it shows is that a significant performance gain can be attained *if* a sufficient effort is put into optimizing for the Mac. RC5 is NOT a fluke. Neither is SETI or any other benchmark that shines the Mac in a brighter light. Note that the code for both of those benchmarks are available for whoever would like to optimize for it.
--
Ed M.
<strong>I speak closely with Chris Cox from Adobe on a regular basis.
--
Ed M.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Next time you see him, say "Good work!" for me.
The Publishing Collection was by far the best investement I made in software yet.
As a Mac and a PC user, I am amazed that mhz is all that anyone can think about. This isn't going to be another long post about usability, but rather just some info to show that it isn't all about mhz...
First if having the fastest solution were the answer, Intel wouldn't be reducing their earnings forecasts, AMD wouldn't be bleeding money (again) and even nVidia has having to reduce their estimated earnings.
On the PC side, they are becoming more and more Mac like in the regard that more and more things are on the motherboard and can't be replaced. Most of these parts are inferior to the Mac equivelent and also slow the machine down considerably from whatever sky high numbers the processor produces. So you can have a 2 ghz $599 wintel box, but it will have integrated video, audio, and networking all lugging down that processor. Apple can easily compete here just by adding some level 3 cache to the current low end G4's and watching them run all over these machines.
The towers...well the towers... Apple should make them all standard dual processor again and then limit the high end box to $2500 with DVD-R. This would put the low end dual box at about $1299 which could be worth it if the new towers have dual bays and it includes DVD and CD-R.
Apple isn't in a terrible position.
Nick
<strong>I don't understand you, moki.
On one hadn you're implying that Apple is going to move to x86 and on the other hand you're implying that some kick-ass PPC is in the works.
Now tell me, why would Apple need to move to x86, if the PPC suddenly kicked ass again?</strong><hr></blockquote>I don't believe he's claiming Apple is making any move currently he is just saying Apple could do so if they chose and does have options if they need them.
There is a very big difference between having an option and exercising it though and I really do see it as being an incredibly unlikely option at least for the next few years. After that length of time any number of things can change.
We all know Microsoft likes to dominate all markets rather than just being another player, so why is there no Windows PPC? NT 3.51 had a PPC version, but it was never pushed. There is a checkbox in Codewarrior to compile for multiple CPUs, but they don't do it. PC developers rarely use a single codebase for multiplatform apps, even MS created the MacBU to recreate Office and IE for Mac. Why not just port Windows and click the other target checkbox?
I'm sure if there was money to be made doing this they would be, but they know no Mac user will spend $2000 on a Mac to run Windows on it. Similarly no PC user will 'switch' to a Windows Mac either - they won't be 2Ghz and $599, they'll be $2000+ like always. Corporates don't buy on CPU type, they buy on price, compatibility and what the head of IT says.
So what are we left with? A really expensive Apple PC which runs a version of X no PC developers support and few Mac developers support, and an Apple Mac that people won't buy because it may be discontinued.
Market confusion is not a good thing for any company. Neither is enticing people with greener grass then switching to the seed they were using before.
But given Apple's track record of late. I don't think so.
Apple have done the impossible in the last few years. And still they have overall shrinking marketshare. Of a hundred million PCs being sold, how many are Apples? Not many is the answer.
So. Apple will have to do the unthinkable and do the impossible over the next few years to get 10%.
They're going to have to come out of their corner with all guns blazing.
x86 is AN option. It MAY be the LAST option.
I guess we'll see.
Having 3% marketshare...(or 5% if you're optimistic...) then Apple are going to have to do something radical over the next few years. The overall price is dropping for PC ownership and only Apple seem to be treading water (for now) on this one.
It's not all doom and gloom. 'Empires' in history have relatively quickly crumpled. Even faster in I.T.
Bar their specs/prices...the 'Mac' has alot going for it.
Interesting, I read that Apple are increasing their purchase of components from Taiwan in the next year...to decrease the hardware cost of Apple products and make them more competitive.
I hope this signals Apple is going to get down and dirty with their 'switch' campaign. They'd better...if they're going to be comparing Macs and PCs in stores...
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
Here's a dual ghz machine:
<a href="http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=99&cpumhz=1000&recordid=1&contes t=rc5&multi=0" target="_blank">http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=99&cpumhz=1000&recordid=1&contes t=rc5&multi=0</a>
Here's a list of ratings for all PPC machines:
<a href="http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=all&arch=2&contest=rc5"; target="_blank">http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=all&arch=2&contest=rc5</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
That URL for the dual machine has results of 10,564,827 &\t10,557,765.
I almost hate to bring this up, but the URL for all PPC machines lists the result for
a 1600(re: 1.6GHz?????) machine as 16,991,648.
Conclusions???
.....1- the 1600 machine is bogus, but has been there a long time(why hasn't it been removed)
.....2-the results for the 1000MHz machines are for single processors.
.........If so where did said 1GHz single processor machines come from?
.....3-the result for the 1600MHz machine is for a dual 800MHz machine.
.....4-Some "wild and crazy guy" overclocked a single to 1.6GHz
Since I'm technically challenged could someone correct me
[ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]
[ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
<strong><snip>Even Photoshop is slower on Macs now, usually by orders of magnitude. RC5 is a fluke, and is not representative of hardware performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope that's sarcasm. I have yet to see one benchmark in which the the winning Photoshop computer won but such a large margin.
x86 hardware IMO is simply not superior enough for me to want a switch personally. I would like to see another two years of Apple/IBM/Moto work before making a judgement.
I think a lot of you have missed the point of moving to another chip.
If Apple move to another chip, for the sake of argument say it's Intel's next big offering, then there are several things that are going to be a given:
1. Apple will be the only manufacturer to build the Mac.
2. OS X might well run on an Intel chip but there's no way it's going to run on anyone else's hardware except Apple's.
3. There's no way Apple's hardware will EVER allow you to install/run Windows of any form, outside of emulation or terminal clients.
The point of getting a new chip is to make the mac run faster than all the other wintel boxes, not to allow MS an 'in' to the Mac or to wipe out Apples HW business by putting the lovely MacOS X on any old beige heap
Go on, flame me, but you now i'm right...
I'm still a fan of Apple using SPARC
[quote] <hr></blockquote>
There really isn't much wrong with the Mac in areas which count on the balance sheet. We're not too hot in 3D but that could well be about to change if we see the 7470 next week.
Perception and Price are what needs changing, not Processor.
A 1.4Ghz G4 should help - in real terms that's about the same speed as a 2Ghz P4, add DDR and AltiVec and it looks pretty good. In truth email and Word are fine on a 500Mhz chip on any platform.
All the prices need lowering. It's better to sell 2 Macs at $2500 than 1 at $3500. Apple needs resellers like CompUSA and PCWorld on side too. I get fed up of seeing crashed Macs in stores.
Finally Apple needs to buy a PC games house so that the best games are on Mac first. They need to ensure affordable after-market graphics cards are out there too.
These things would offer far more ROI than going up against MS as a PC builder.
<strong>LBB, I think your LAST RESORT description sums up Mac x86 well.
There really isn't much wrong with the Mac in areas which count on the balance sheet. We're not too hot in 3D but that could well be about to change if we see the 7470 next week.
Perception and Price are what needs changing, not Processor.
A 1.4Ghz G4 should help - in real terms that's about the same speed as a 2Ghz P4, add DDR and AltiVec and it looks pretty good. In truth email and Word are fine on a 500Mhz chip on any platform.
All the prices need lowering. It's better to sell 2 Macs at $2500 than 1 at $3500. Apple needs resellers like CompUSA and PCWorld on side too. I get fed up of seeing crashed Macs in stores.
Finally Apple needs to buy a PC games house so that the best games are on Mac first. They need to ensure affordable after-market graphics cards are out there too.
These things would offer far more ROI than going up against MS as a PC builder.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good points, blackcat, you've got the right idea
[quote] <hr></blockquote>